Letters To The Editor

June 14, 2002

Reject shallow, self-centered choices

Since Sept. 11, it has been in vogue to spout off about patriotism, morality and what it means to be an American. Far too often we behave as though we were the most rational, intellectual, moral, generous, fair, free-loving people on earth.

Lately, there is little evidence to support that and much to the contrary. At every level of government, there is a relentless pursuit of our same self-centered, shallow, shortsighted responses to issues of local, national and international importance.

For example, in Richmond, the Speaker of the House made reference to the high-ranking Virginia Republican Party official eavesdropping on the governor and Democratic General Assembly members as a "boys will be boys" incident. Yet, the GOP executive director resigned and was indicted on four counts, and the Speaker's chief of staff was placed on leave since her cell phone was involved in the incident.

We shrugged it off as conducting American business, as usual.

Despite this, the Democrats took rational steps forward in restoring Virginia's fiscal integrity by closing the $3.8 billion shortfall and succeeded in getting the transportation referendum on the ballot in Hampton Roads.

What a breath of fresh air it would be if all politicians and political parties worked together in a constructive, cooperative way to bring about what is best for all and not just the self-appointed chosen few.

Dorothy Anderson

James City County

Poquoson values

Having recently listened to a sermon on "A tree planted by the water," I thought, if this tree is on land (by the water) in Poquoson, the owner can't afford to give money to the church because his taxes have increased by at least 25 percent.

It doesn't matter that the cove has filled in to a point where the area is only mud for 12 hours a day and the other 12 hours his outboard motor hits bottom.

In my case, the city approved a subdivision, away from the water, but the silt from the area drained down into our water.

The newspaper article said our city council wouldn't raise taxes, but by not cutting the tax rate, they have let the assessor do it.

My house and land cost $17,500 in 1963. It's worth $159,000 to the city today, but not to me unless I sell it.

Niel Schott

Poqoson

Reject referendum

A lawsuit was filed alleging that the tax-raising referendum questions in Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia are unconstitutional (June 11 Daily Press).

The referendum calls for an increase in sales tax from 4.5 percent to 5.5 percent, or a 22 percent increase. We are being told that VDOT needs the money in order to improve our roads and build a third bridge connecting the Peninsula to South Hampton Roads.

What VDOT needs is not more money, but better management. VDOT needs to be able to work efficiently and negotiate contracts that hold the contractors accountable for their work. Instead we reward inefficiency.

The Interstate 64 road-widening project on the Peninsula is such an example. The project was and has been delayed by years, and the delay was paid for by the taxpayers. We need contracts that penalize the contractor if they don't hold up their end of the deal. Now we reward them for going slow. Good deal for them!

Taxes in the Commonwealth are high enough. When diners go to a restaurant in Newport News they actually pay a higher tax than they would at a restaurant in Manhattan!

Raising taxes and giving more money to VDOT is merely throwing money away. It is not the smart thing to do.

Noles states, "The civic association held a quick election, counted the votes and announced that our community wanted to become a "special district" so that the city of Hampton would collect the fees for them. The measure was quickly pushed through City Council."

Here is the documented sequence of events:

* October 2000 newsletter to Elizabeth Lake Estates residents explained the initiative and included a questionnaire;

* The January 2001 newsletter stated the intent to move forward. The April newsletter reported meetings with city representatives and City Council and a plan to present the ordinance to residents and the need for 65 percent approval (207 ayes) then City Council approval;

* April 24, special newsletter distributed with ballot;

* May Newsletter urged all residents to return ballots. The subsequent vote was 228 yes, 20 no (91.9 percent), including Noles' no vote;

Attendance recommended at upcoming City Council meetings;

* June 13, 2001, City Council second and final reading. The measure passed.